Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban Re: mei (was Pro-Sumti) In-Reply-To F82t69A9gy3Xiz93Fd100006cb6@hot

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la pycyn cusku di'e

> {piro} is no more transparent to negation boundaries or quantifier order 
> than
> {pisu'o} is -- {piro loi broda na brode} = {pisu'o loi broda cu naku brode}

I don't think that's true. The first does entail the second,
but {pisu'o loi broda naku brode} could be true and {piro loi broda
na brode} false. For example:

    piro lei bolci na se culno le baktu  FALSE
    pisu'o lei bolci naku se culno le baktu TRUE

(BTW, you can't have {naku} after {cu}, it is not part of the selbri.)

{piro loi broda} is trasnsparent to negation boundaries because
it is a singular term.

> (I know that you probably allow {piro} on empty masses, but skipping that
> oddity for now -- it just means we have to use the marked forms here).
> And the choice of the default quantifier, it it has any reason other than
> "something  has to be default" is likely tied up with the nature of masses
> and thus affects every word that deals with masses.

But it has no other reason than "something has to be default"
as far as I can see.

> On that ground, I think
> that selected masses are different from universal ones -- but Lojban says
> they are not, so all get the same treatment.

Talking about universal masses as a whole only produces
platitudes, that's why having {piro} for them would be
a waste. {pisu'o loi} surely must be more frequent than
{piro loi}. But in the case of {lei}, we normally want to
talk about the whole mass we have in mind. It is exactly
the same thing that happens with {le} and {lo}.

> {ko'a joi ko'e joi ko'i} stands for some mass {lei ...
> [whatever predicate fits exactly these three things]} in a fundamental way
> and thus -- by the admitted rule about implict quantification -- stands for
> some unspecified submass from that set of things (my preferred reading of
> {mei} in any case) .  To say it is the whole mass is either to say that the
> default quantifer on {loi} is {piro}, which you don't want, or to say that
> {ko'a joi ko'e joi ko'i} is not equivalent to {loi du be ko'a be'o ja du be
> ko'e be'o ja du be ko'i} (to pick the most boring -- and safest -- unique
> property of this cluster).

Right. It is equivalent instead to {piro loi du be ko'a be'o ja
du be ko'e be'o ja du be ko'i}. Why is that a problem?

> I admit that {le cimei} may be different because I
> can't see any disaster happening if it is -- yet.

And what disaster happens if {joi} is equivalent to {piro loi}?


> <<(I have to admit I still don't get how the problem of
> intensionality appears here.)>>
>
> It doesn't yet for me -- I'm doing this to avoid intensionality, remember.
> But if the two masses mention above -- named by {joi}s between its member
> names and the other named as the mass of those which have the property
> uniigue to the things named are different, then the difference between them
> is intensional -- since the set underlying them are identical (or "they 
> have
> exactly the same members").

Is the difference between {piro loi broda} and
{pisu'o loi broda} intensional? Because that's the
difference between the {joi} form and the {pisu'o loi}
form.

mu'o mi'e xorxes






_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com